2012 (10) TMI 393 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of sales return Goods sold by assessee is a branded commodity Cover Under the regulations of Essential Commodity Act - In search and seizure undisclosed sale bills are seized - Assessee claims huge sales returns Sales return claimed against profit because of non- acceptance by manufacturer - Held that - It cannot be assumed that any brand will manufacture defective goods to such an extent. In normal circumstances, assessee cannot be allowed such goods return as claimed. Therefore sale returns claimed by assessee restricted to estimated 5% when the books of accounts are rejected. And undisclosed sales will be worked out accordingly. Case referred back to AO Addition on account of investment on out of books (Uchanti) purchases - The sales rejected as above, are on the basis of seized sale bills during search And there is no evidence of any purchases outside the books of account Held that - Assessee has indulged in wide spread undisclosed sales. No reason is advanced as to how such a huge turn over can be carried out without some undisclosed purchases. In view of ITAT addition was very reasonable addition by AO. Decided in favor of revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions on account of undisclosed/concealed income based on seized sale bills.
2. Deletion of addition on account of investment in Uchanti purchases.
3. Direction to work out profit percentages for certain assessment years.
4. Rejection of sales returns as per books and estimation of sales returns at 20%.
5. Addition on account of a sale bill seized from a third party.
6. Inclusion of sales tax on sales returns as part of suppressed turnover.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Additions on Account of Undisclosed/Concealed Income Based on Seized Sale Bills:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 19,86,359/- and Rs. 30,45,504/- for the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively, made on account of undisclosed/concealed income based on seized sale bills. The Assessing Officer (AO) had rejected the assessee's claim of inflated sale returns, which the assessee argued were due to defective goods being returned. The CIT(A) estimated allowable sales returns at 20%, which was contested by both parties. The Tribunal found the 20% estimation by CIT(A) unjustified and reduced the allowable sales returns to 5%, thereby recalculating the undisclosed sales accordingly.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Investment in Uchanti Purchases:
The AO added Rs. 12,50,000/- as undisclosed investment in Uchanti purchases based on sales of Rs. 13,14,880/- made on 28-04-1998. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, arguing there was no evidence of purchases outside the books of account. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, upholding the AO's addition, reasoning that such voluminous turnover indicated undisclosed purchases.

3. Direction to Work Out Profit Percentages for Certain Assessment Years:
The CIT(A) directed the profit to be worked out at 4.78% and 3.84% for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, respectively. The Revenue argued that this was incorrect given the non-production and rejection of books. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of gross profit percentages and dismissed the Revenue's ground.

4. Rejection of Sales Returns as Per Books and Estimation of Sales Returns at 20%:
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s rejection of their sales returns as per the books and the estimation of sales returns at 20%. The Tribunal noted the high percentage of sales returns claimed (26.15% and 64.72% for the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively) was unrealistic, especially for a branded commodity like vanaspati ghee. The Tribunal reduced the allowable sales returns to 5%, citing the non-production of books and the nature of the business.

5. Addition on Account of a Sale Bill Seized from a Third Party:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 3270/- based on a sale bill of Rs. 68,430/- seized from a third party, arguing the bill did not belong to them. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground, noting that the gross profit would be included in the gross sales, and thus, the addition was unnecessary.

6. Inclusion of Sales Tax on Sales Returns as Part of Suppressed Turnover:
Both the AO and the CIT(A) included sales tax collected but not paid to the government as part of the suppressed turnover. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to include sales tax in the suppressed turnover and directed the estimation of income based on the gross profit percentages.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals. The allowable sales returns were reduced to 5%, the addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- for Uchanti purchases was upheld, and the inclusion of sales tax in suppressed turnover was maintained. The addition of Rs. 3270/- based on the third-party sale bill was deleted. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance the discrepancies found in the assessee's records and the AO's assessments.